31–40 of 109 posts
What was Charm? What did it do? 100k for "infrastructure alone" seems like a massive investment for a startup. How far along were they?
It was a customer support / issue tracking service.
I didn't get to see Charm before they shut down, so I have no idea what they were doing.
Could anyone speak towards how their experience was unique enough to cause kernel panics?
Probably a bad idea to advertise you can't keep a simple webserver up. Probably won't get funded ever.
If rails causes a kernel panic then this is really a bug in the kernel. No user land app should ever do this. Why not try to scale on *BSD or Windows all of whom have different kernel and scale just fine? $100,000 and no one said "hey what about running it on "?
I'm as bewildered as all of you. But let's give them the benefit of doubt, he probably just forgot to mention that they tried other OSes. I mean, who wouldn't?
Googling for "rails charmhq" doesn't reveal much, just that one of the Rails contractors was a company called Queve: http://www.qurve.com/clients/charm/
If rails causes a kernel panic then this is really a bug in the kernel. No user land app should ever do this. Why not try to scale on *BSD or Windows all of whom have different kernel and scale just fine? $100,000 and no one said "hey what about running it on "?
This is normal for Ubuntu kernels from experience. They are shitty. Various server releases have given us hell. They're fudging them somehow. We moved to debian after numerous problems and have had no issues since.
Does rails not run on Centos, Debian, or SuSE?
I have no idea what this team was trying to do, but I imagine there _had_ to be more than what they wrote in this gist. That, or they simply ran out of money to troubleshoot the issue further.
There are also many different ways you can run Rails apps. They could've tried to run them on varoius Rack compatible application servers (Passenger on Apache or Nginx, Thin or Unicorn, et al.) -- If they migrated backwards to Rails 2, they could've used an [obsolete] version of Passenger with Ruby 1.8.7-Enterprise, which had many speed and stability improvements. (Assuming their app wasn't 1.9.x compatible.)
tl;dr: There has to be more to the story than this, they had so many options. For a $100,000 investment in administration, I'd have trouble believing they _didn't_ explore other options.
If rails causes a kernel panic then this is really a bug in the kernel. No user land app should ever do this. Why not try to scale on *BSD or Windows all of whom have different kernel and scale just fine? $100,000 and no one said "hey what about running it on "?
This is normal for Ubuntu kernels from experience. They are shitty. Various server releases have given us hell. They're fudging them somehow. We moved to debian after numerous problems and have had no issues since.
Does rails not run on Centos, Debian, or SuSE?